starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
Forum:Infoboxes
Concerning the new infoboxes, in most cases, these come off as a step backwards from the current design. Not only is the template layout far more complicated, but it seems to do a less apt job of conveying the info. Taking Jim Raynor as an example - the use of opposite order isn't one I agree with (I'd go top to down, earliest to latest), and the position description (e.g. revolutionary) doesn't help when characters have an occupation that doesn't go with an affiliation, or vice versa. Also it hasn't accounted for his current Dominion affiliation. IMO, the old template is far better by dividing allegiance and occupation, since both sections can work on their own. The unit box stuff also seems like a step back in that there's no longer links to stuff like minerals, supply, etc., only the icons. The marine page is an example. And now Lost Temple, where map size isn't being displayed. Perhaps minor, but again, amount of text has increased. Overall, I'm not seeing the benefits of the new infoboxes. Ideally the layout should be as simple as possible, but here, it seems that they're just being made more complicated to edit.--Hawki (talk) 09:08, August 16, 2015 (UTC) :Since the new infobox is modular, being composed of sub-boxes. The order of sub-boxes is completely arbitrary, so the order which positions/occupations/activities are displayed can be changed to whatever. I chose reverse order for testing (I figured more recent things are more relevant), but this is something for policy. I have no problem with displaying activities in chronological order (top to bottom.) :How large a problem (or how many cases) are there of occupations having no other information associated with them? And affiliations with no associated occupations? Some special tinkering might be called for here. :I found the separation of the occupations and affiliations made interpreting the activities of an object difficult, especially since the larger lists were becoming ugly and difficult to read as the indentations got larger. I took inspiration from some of Wikipedia's stuff which gives each "segment" of an objects life its own space. :For the unit costs, would making the icons into links (with appropriate mouse over text) be sufficient? Condensing the cost into a single row is rather efficient and the same thing was done with the new UnitAgmtBox. :Map size not showing was an unintended omission. Good catch. - Meco (talk, ) 09:42, August 16, 2015 (UTC) ::Occupation/affiliation isn't so much an issue for the games, but it gets very murky when you start breaking into EU material. The novel Nova is an example of that, with the abundence of civilian characters. With Raynor, there's another problem - for instance, in lore, he's currently a commander in the Dominion. So I've ended up putting "Commander" as a descriptive and "Commander" as a rank - repetition, but other terms felt too iffy. Also, another issue - he's stated as "Marine" under the Confederacy, but he didn't stop being a marine after that - he's still classified as one in the SoK, Raynor's Raiders, etc. IMO, the old method was better in that it showed affiliation in chronological order, and positions. I think the current template has promise in that it makes section titles more distinct (e.g. physical appearance, affiliation, etc.), but the presentation of the info is iffy. ::Concerning the unit box - the images being links to the resource/factor (supply, psi, etc.) would be a benefit. Looking at the marine one, I still prefer the old version in that it clearly lists out "minerals" and "vespene gas" along the side for instance. I know an image is worth a thousand words, so to speak, but I feel this is more informative in that it provides clearer links to the aspects. Images by themselves aren't as intuitive for newcomers. Also, I linked the C-14 rifle (which should be linked, IMO - there's other examples of this, such as psi-blades for zealots), but, well, you can see the result. On a positive note, I think the listing of voice actor is a good move within the template. ::For things like map sizes and bookboxes, provided the info is presented, I don't have a preference for either. ::On a more positive note, since we're disccusing this, I'll give thanks for the new ability boxes you did. It's made my job in creating and editing them much easier, so kudos there.--Hawki (talk) 10:01, August 16, 2015 (UTC) :::Ah, looking through some of the Nova characters, I begin to see where we have people with affiliations but no hard profession/etc. At least of the ones I've found so far, I would be tempted just to set their "activity" name to "civilian". If we get desperate, we could (sort of) replicate the old box by setting "name" to "Political status" (or somesuch) and filling in the "allegiance"/"organization" as normal. (I like to think nobody will mistake "Political status" as a job title.) :::For the name=Commander and title=Commander situation, I was thinking name would be the occupation. I haven't been following developments, but I imagine in this situation "name" would be something like "soldier". But if both are the same, perhaps "title" could be left blank, since "name" can pull double duty. :::For Raynor as marine, perhaps what's needed is a new field called "skills" where a list of an objects salient, well, skills can be listed. Hmm, Infobox/job could do it with a little tinkering. Heh, Infobox/job is the successor to JobBox; JobBox was used only once - on the ghost page. - Meco (talk, ) 10:47, August 16, 2015 (UTC) ::::Yeah...sorry, Raynor just isn't cutting it for me. I did a blind test on other wikis to simulate the average wiki user - most of the time, I didn't have any question on how to edit a character box, or what info to fill in where. Here, looking at the amount of fields, many of which are never used, it comes off as overly complicated. ::::There's another thing about characters - Raynor is pretty much an extreme in regards to how many times his affiliation and position has changed. Many terran characters in the games can say the same. However, that level of variance drops sharply with zerg and protoss characters, and more minor terran characters as well. Looking at, say, Daggoth for instance - he has one affiliation change, and with occupation listed below affiliation, the links between the two are evident. ::::As a test of my own, I've edited the Sarah Kerrigan page, using breaks in the character box to represent significant shifts of allegiance/position, similar to how we do it on war pages. Because on one hand, I understand that piling on this data can get a bit messy, but I think the lines do a better job of making it easy to edit, while also denoting the shifts quickly and readily.--Hawki (talk) 11:53, August 16, 2015 (UTC) :::::Not final, as Psi will have the final word, but I've converted Raynor's page back to the old template using the Kerrigan idea. If we go with the new template it'll have to be put in chronological order again anyway - there's also the issue of color, as to whether an affiliation section uses the host color or branch color (e.g. Duke would have red for Dominion, but white for Alpha Squadron). Most importantly...yeah, said this before, but while I've obviously had experience, the editing method feels far more intuitive on the old template. Looking at the War Pigs one, the key difference is that all the headings are listed in a few key sections, making it far easier.--Hawki (talk) 12:43, August 16, 2015 (UTC) :I'm taking a look at the old vs new templates on the Raynor page history. I don't have a problem with the new template itself. I think we just need to separate occupation (job or unit type) from occupation (position in the hierarchy of the Dominion/Conferacy/whatever) in some cases. :For instance, Raynor has been a marine for Heaven's Devils, Mar Sara, Sons of Korhal, Raynor's Raiders, and Terran Dominion. A place for marine, vulture driver, etc could be separate from his affiliation info. Presumably the occupation/affiliation box can be used for this, just with no affiliation listed. For that matter, a random civilian could have one occupation/affiliation box for Confederacy (or whatever) and another one for job (eg scientist). When both are important, eg Commander of Raynor's Raiders, the template can accommodate both. :Meanwhile, "Marshal" (with affiliation Confederacy) would be its own interior box. (The box was labeled Confederate marshal, but probably marshal with the affiliation label "Confederacy" would have been sufficient.) :Under the old template, not only did some subdivisions get very hard to read (eg First Squad, I think horizontally that's just one word wide), but some (such as Screaming Skulls) had no information beyond a name and a date. I'm not sure how the new template deals with "subdivisions" eg Raynor's Rangers as part of Sons of Korhal. I would hope the same issue would not return. :Being able to move around boxes has another minor benefit. I noticed in the old template, Raynor's family is on the other end of the template than his biographical information. Maybe we've always had it that way and I've never noticed, but that kind of information is "related" (no pun intended) and should be next to each other. On that note, on the new template that box should say "family and relatives" and not just relatives. :Having a bunch of colors can be a little confusing. It makes sense in Raynor's case, but I think/hope there's a way to pick a single color for the whole template, which would make sense for most characters. :I agree with concerns about info missing in the new template that was in the old. Fortunately the template can still be modified to add that info back. :Are the new unit infoboxes ready yet? I have Zeratul's Whispers of Oblivion stats waiting, and I want to test out the new template and see if I can get my head around it. Actually I doubt it will be difficult, even if I need to put the "full" template on my user page. I can just use the parts that are needed when making a new unit or character. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 14:03, August 16, 2015 (UTC) ::I had not considered using Infobox/activity for listing specific skills (like "vulture pilot"). (I didn't think CharBox included that sort of thing.) There could be some confusion distinguishing those Infobox/activity subboxes used for describing career details, and those used to describe specific skills, due to the way they appear visually. I suppose any Infobox/activity used for skills could have its subname field set as "Skill" or something. My idea was just to use Infobox/job to display a simple list of specific skills, but that might not be ideal if we want to assign dates or whatnot to skills. ::Alas, the colour of each subbox must be set separately, since they're all technically independent templates. There doesn't seem to be a way to pass values between templates in the way that we need here. ::If you see row names/section headers that need to be changed or turned into links or whatever, go right ahead and do it. Same goes for missing information. ::I'm satisfied with the state of the infobox for units. I've only tested it on the SC2 marine and War Pigs articles so far (no zerg or protoss.) I was just going to start conversions as a way of locating bugs, so if you want to go ahead and use for Zeratul that will help too. - Meco (talk, ) 16:08, August 16, 2015 (UTC) :::Problem is, as Psi pointed out, positions don't always change with affiliation. Raynor's piloted the Vulture as early as HD, but in theory, there's nothing to stop him getting on one again at any different time. Unless pilot is his job description, it's never linked to affiliation. Hence, affiliation and job work well in separate areas. :::Also, IMO, family works well on the current template where it is, IMO, as it's arguably more tangental to the character than the above data. Kind of like how trivia goes at the end of an article.--Hawki (talk) 23:08, August 16, 2015 (UTC) ::::That's why I propose adding unaffiliated skills to Infobox/job's skills field. This would happen with in "Esmerelda Ndoci" with the "soccer player" item, and presumably with Raynor's vulture piloting skill (if it was actually noted in the box, which it isn't in either the new or old box.) ::::A job name staying the same when affiliation changes isn't a problem; just add a new section when that happens. Section 1: name=Delivery man, affiliation=Confederacy; Section 2: name=Delivery man, affiliation=Dominion.; Section 3: name=Delivery man, affiliation=Independent. If there are particular roles (activities supporting the job) that a person fills during that time, that what Infobox/activity's "role" field is for (role=Vulture pilot, dropship pilot, etc). ::::The Raynor vulture pilot example confuses me since I wouldn't regard vulture piloting as the job description. It's a skill ("role") that supports a job, and wouldn't have a box named for it. It's like how the "Marine" section indicates "member of the marine corps", not "rifle-wielding, powered armour wearing, soldier". ::::I imagine this would be the case for members of the Confed Marine Corps (name=Marine,affil=Confed,org=Confed Marine Corps) that went over to the Dominion Marine Corps (name=Marine,affil=Dom,org=Dom Marine Corps). If they defected to, say, the Raiders, that would be another section (name=Marine,affil=Raynor's Raider). ::::The relations field is where it is in the new box due to constraints in the design. Moving it to the bottom would require a new subbox, with a major header to separate it from preceding subboxes. - Meco (talk, ) 01:18, August 17, 2015 (UTC) :::::Maybe here there could be a box used as a test - it would help with visualisation of a new style.--Hawki (talk) 04:18, August 17, 2015 (UTC) Terran Confederacy |organization=Duke Family |location= |date= }} |subname= |alias= |race= |type= |title=Major |allegiance= Terran Confederacy |organization= :Confederate Marine Corps ::22nd Confederate Marine Division |location= |date=?–February, 2500 }} Terran Dominion |organization= : Dominion Marine Corps ::22nd Dominion Marine Division |location= |date=March, 2500– }} Here's the example for Esmerelda Ndoci. There are a few more examples at User:Meco/sandbox. - Meco (talk, ) 00:04, August 18, 2015 (UTC) :I'm going to have to bugger off for now. Looking at the template, it looks good for the most part. One thing of note, I think "birth" and "death" works better than "fate," as "fate" is a very vague term and leaves the entry open for all kinds of data that should best be covered better in the article.--Hawki (talk) 00:09, August 18, 2015 (UTC) ::Additionally, "skills" is a bit vague as well, as it behoves us to list every kind of skill every kind of character has, which can get very complicated very quickly. Overall, sorry, but I still favor the old template. It still comes off as more succinct.--Hawki (talk) 00:11, August 18, 2015 (UTC) Category:Watercooler :::Skills certainly don't bother me. It's how you use them. I would only mention her significant skills. She's already described as a marine officer, so there's no need to mention things like shooting, tactics, etc. There's just marine officer (job) and soccer. I think I'd actually remove the part about the Dominion Marine Corps in the Marine section, as that's covered in an earlier infobox. I don't see this as an objection to the template. Certainly in the example, things like her affiliations cross with her "jobs". Old Family member doesn't make sense unless she's a member of the Old Families. This is more important for civilians who aren't politicians, of course, as then their affiliation really has nothing to do with the job. :::We don't know what soccer team she played in, so here's she's just a plain soccer player and serial killer. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 00:20, August 18, 2015 (UTC) ::::And now that I'm testing the template, I don't find it too hard either. I just put the new infobox between "start" and "end" infoboxes. (The infobox is very plain because, well, it's two terms. No need to go overboard.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 00:22, August 18, 2015 (UTC) :::::Okay, then I guess I have to bow to that. However, I still think that birth/death is preferable to "fate." Also stand by the notion that it should go in chronological order top to down rather than vice versa (e.g. the Ndoci template is fine for this, showing the progression of allegiance).--Hawki (talk) 00:37, August 18, 2015 (UTC) More points though - there's still the issue of profession linkage in the sections (e.g. "marine"). That, and we're potentially repeating ourselves by having to list "major" twice.--Hawki (talk) 00:40, August 18, 2015 (UTC) I have no problem with changing "fate" back to "died", and top-to-bottom chronological order. We'll need to use Template:ColorIntLink for section name links when the link and background colours clash. I don't mind the repeating titles since they're relevant to each section; I haven't found any examples yet, but there may be cases where title changes between sections. - Meco (talk, ) 01:00, August 18, 2015 (UTC) :Another vote for changing the chronological order, but of course this isn't a criticism of the template, just an issue with how the page editor puts things in order. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:37, August 18, 2015 (UTC)